> - i don't think there is much controversy about the suggested feature.
thanks for clarifying! possibly, using the term "controversial" was a bit unfortunate here. my thought simply was that adding these objects might contradict the aim of keeping the set of pd's native objects as reduced as possible after seeing that this PR has been sitting for a while already. > i wrote this only to express that the non-inclusion of the desired > feature might be simply a matter of unfortunate timing. all good - these objects would also be a great addition to future versions. :) cheers, ben _______________________________________________ Pd-dev mailing list [email protected] https://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-dev
